- Information
- AI Chat
Nehru Notes IPT 2 semester 6
Indian Political Thought-II (6.2)
University of Delhi
Recommended for you
Preview text
Ques: Democratic socialism and its relevance
Ques: Nehru’s View on Secularism
Political thought of Jawaharlal Nehru
Jawaharlal Nehru is widely acclaimed as one of the architects of modern India. His remarkable personality was an unusual combination of an intellectual and practical political leader. He belongs to that group of Western educated Indian elite who Drew the inspiration mainly from the intellectual currents of the nineteenth and twentieth century. He was not inspired by politics of moderate groups, all together his father Motilal Nehru was a vocal supporter of it. He was one of the few nationalist leaders who remained critical both in the freedom struggle and its aftermath. For instance, the Congress leadership was content with dominion status till the 1928 Calcutta Congress, though Nehru and his radical col- leagues expressed annoyance. Because of his strong defence and mobilisation of support, the 1929 Lahore Congress accepted his demand for complete freedom and not dominion status. He was a scientific rationalist and held views contrary to the majority opinion even at the chagrin of the Congress leadership, including Gandhi.
Liberal nationalism Nehru was aware nationalism particularly as it existed in the Colonial world was both the composite and a level force and could make the from the spirit of man gives a certain degree of Unity vigor and vitality too many people all over the world but he was conscious of the fact that Indian nationalism, domaine De rooted in the universal virtues of fascism, liberalism and nationalism” was not free of limitation. He wanted in the nationalism to the Limited, liberalized and balanced it thought it would be harmful if it ever made the people conscious of their own superiority or aggressive expansionism.
What he demanded was the introduction of a secular, rational and scientific International Outlook as the essential ingredients of Indian nationalism. In other words, he was the most vocal critic of religious metaphysical and we wear by the list outlook which according to him was greatly harmful to the cause of national Liberation as well as to the growth of nationhood.
Anti imperialism anti-imperialist attitude found its first open expression at the group Brussels Congress held in February 1927. There he stressed the common element in the struggle against imperialism in different parts of the world. his Association with the ‘ League against imperialism’ And his short visit to the Soviet Union later in 1927 brought a radical change in political perception.
His partial acceptance of Marxist interpretation of history gave an insight into the facts of social evolution he made no deeper analysis he believed that the dominant class, the class which control the means of production was the ruling class and that the class conflict in an exploitative and oppressed society could not be avoided. As an intellectual he diagnosed the social maladies and understood their social economic consequences of the practical side of his politics he remained extremely cautious.
Uncompromising stand towards complete Independence Nehru's new radicalism reaffirmed his enthusiasm for more purposeful political action. his whole effort during the 20s was to redefine the concept of Swaraj in terms of complete Independence. As a first step, he tried to pursue the Congress for an open commitment to the goal of complete Independence. Nehru moved a
resolution on complete Independence at the Madras session of the Congress held in 1927 and it was formally adopted here. Nehru took immediate steps to form a new organisation the Republican League and the Independence for India league. The former was mainly intended to work for the establishment of complete national Independence while the latter was to carry on a vigorous campaign for the same cause.
On Planning and development
Planning seems to have provided the Congress stalwarts with a platform to articulate different ideological positions. Drawing on their respective ideological leanings, Jawaharlal Nehru hailed industrialism while Gandhi opposed it, since he felt that instead of contributing to the general welfare, machine civilisation would not only expose Indians to a worse kind of exploitation but also lead to a general degradation of human life.
The detailed description of the evolution of planning is illustrative of Nehru’s uncritical faith in planning, though he acknowledged that planning was to be guided by what he charac- terised as ‘integrated planning’. The argument that Nehru put forward seemed divorced from the reality of India which was so diverse and fractured and, thus, it was difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a consensus on the role of planning. He knew that getting his idea of the planning commission approved by the parliament and state assemblies was a damn difficult task. Hence, he was forced to constitute the planning commission through an executive order in 1950.
The planning commission was, thus, conceptualised not in strict Leninist terms, but in terms of Fabian Socialism which meant that it was a system ‘that worked on gradualism, by permeation, by compromise and by advice from think-tanks, academics and technocrats’.
Nehru’s insistence on planning also brought out his unflinching faith in scientific temper. Science and development were dialectically linked. Science, as Nehru understood, was not merely a device, it was also a mindset supportive of ‘rational’ and ‘progressive’ activities. It was not, therefore, surprising that ‘many of the personnel who came to be closely associated with the planning of industrialisation were men who were closely involved in the practice of science’. In terms of the actual rate of growth, the contribution of the planning commission may not be phenomenal. What it pro- duced was ‘a sense that ... the national government was tackling problems with a vision and vigour the imperial government had not possessed’
Another significant aspect of Nehru's model of economic development was the creation of consciousness of economic planning. By that time, in several countries of the west capitalism has been civilized, tamed and toned down and many of its old evils extricated by the insistence of the masses. These countries were working vigorously to provide a better life for the masses. Nehru was aware of these developments and the importance of socialism for tackling contemporary social problems. But finally he threw himself in favour of a mixed economy as most suitable and most practicable for India. it would be an economy in which socialist principle and ideals prevailed along with a fair share of capitalism.
socialistic pattern of society was "not socialising in its pure form but this form would," he was convinced, "lead the country in the direction of socialism."
Nehru's concept of socialism had a vision of future India and of modernising India. FIe wrote: "For we have to build India on a scientific foundation to develop her industries, to change that feudal character of her land system and bring her agriculture in time with modern methods to develop the social services which she looks so utterly today." If India has to modernise itself, it must, Nehru said, "lessen her religiosity and turn to science. She must get rid of her exclusiveness in thought and social habit which has become like a prison to her stunting her spirit and preventing growth."
Neru repeatedly stressed the need for Swaraj and socialism as a joint objective of the movement and formerly believed that India could not have one without the other. It was also his conviction that political freedom could no longer be separated from economic freedom since world events were forcing the issue to the forefront.
But his concept of socialism remained largely undefined throughout. He had no rigid adherence to any brand of socialism as such. He was solely Guided by the practical consideration of Indian society's concrete situation as it appeared before him. He had no intentions either of forming a new party or group in order to carry out socialist objectives. However, in the pursuit of his vague socialist idea, Nehru had to face difficulties. The main and most of these words providing Social Justice without sacrificing individual freedom was certainly an important one.
Unlike the communist Nehru chose the method of persuasion Peaceful democratic pressures as against the methods of destruction and extermination. In India Nehru argued nationalism and rural economy constituted the core of the problem as such it could not be dealt with terms of industrial proletariat. He did not subscribe to the Marxian theory of class war and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He totally disliked the communist policy of ruthless separation of political dissent and the wholesale regimentation. He honestly believed that it was possible to liquidate poverty and ensure your minimum standard of life for all without any violent overthrow of existing order. even if the conflicts did exist between the class is the best to resolve that conflict was to put an end to it by peaceful methods. India therefore will have to find her own way to socialism which would avoid unnecessary sacrifices and the possibility of chaos. He strongly believed that democracy and socialism were not contradictory but complementary to one another. his concept of social democracy did not amount to any serious infringement of individual freedom and civil Liberty. His tremendous respect for human freedom and individual rights on the one hand and his total opposition to authoritarianism and regimentation on the other and other above all the considerations arising out of his practical consideration with the system possibly prevented him from accepting an ideologically rigid position.
Nehru was a practical Idealist. The problem with him was that the intellectual in him prompted him to be a critic of both Communism and capitalism. The task before Nehru was therefore to continuously educate the people in the spirit of democratic socialism in order to win them over to that cause. In any case the freedom and the dignity of the individual was well preserved in Nehru's model which is analysed objectively, was nothing but welfare capitalism.
NEHRU ON SECULARISM
Nehru pitted scientific reason against religious faith. No wonder then, Nehru also espoused a secular state—a state that separated itself from religion and was indifferent, if not hostile, to it. Nehru’s views on religion and secularism, indeed even his considered political practice, were very different from those espoused under the “Nehruvian Secularism” that emerged soon after his death—a handiwork of intellectuals close to his daughter, Indira Gandhi.
To begin with, Nehru was neither com- fortable with the terms, “Religion” nor “Secular.” For instance, on religion, he says in his autobiography, “The word ‘re- ligion’ has lost all precise significance (if it ever had it!) and only causes confusion and gives rise to interminable debate and argument. It would be far better if it was dropped from use altogether”
He says, religion “consists of the inner de- velopment of the individual, the evolu- tion of his consciousness in a certain direction which is considered good. What that direction is, will again be a matter of debate. But as far as I understand it, religion lays stress on this inner develop- ment and considers outward change as the projection of this inward development”.
He then goes on to quote John Dewey, the American phi- losopher, “Religion is whatever intro- duces genuine perspective into the piece- meal and shifting episodes of existence; or again any activity pursued on behalf of an ideal end against obstacles and in spite of threats of personal loss, because of conviction of its general and enduring value, is religious in quality. If this is reli- gion no one can have the slightest objec- tion to it”
On Secular States and Secularism
Even if the majority of a country owes their allegiance to one of the religions, so that the general climate is coloured, as he believed India’s is, with the Hindu ethos, the state should not be Hindu. He was particularly critical of the “Hindu Rashtra ” or a Hindu nation state. the state cannot identify with it or with any other. It cannot attach itself to any one religion and declare it as the state religion.
Not only does it reduce the status of others, it marginalises them and makes them feel inferior. Thus, since all states in the modern era are nation states, Nehru opposed all narrow nationalisms, including religious ones. In religiously diverse societies, all religious nationalisms are exclusionary.
The nationalism that needs to be built in India, he argued, must have its doors and windows open to internationalism. But for this to hap- pen, the state must not identify with even any Religion A. The ends promoted by any Religion A, no matter how valua- ble, cannot be the ends of a secular state.
Second, in Nehru’s view, a secular state cannot be an anti-religious state. It is not a state where religion as such is discouraged, or pushed into oblivion .A secular state must protect each of their places of worship and guarantee their religious practices. It must protect freedom of religion and conscience, in- cluding, of course, the freedom for those who have no religion (including athe- ists).
But what should a secular state do in relation to Religion B—aspects of a reli- gion in terms of status and power hierar- chies, doctrinal matters, on inter-religious rivalry, on hate-speech and inter-religious violence? It might be worth recalling that all secular states must satisfy at least two requirements. They must (a) discon- nect from the ends specified by the doc- trines of any Religion B and (b) religious personnel—such
It is the duty of a secular state to protect religious diversity and to undermine inter-religious domination. For Nehru, communalism meant the domination by one religious community over other reli- gious communities. If this is so, a secular state must oppose communalism, regardless of whether it stems from the minority or the majority
In order to protect minorities from majoritarian domination, it is crucial that these communities be given community- specific minority rights so that they are able to procure all those benefits that come routinely to the majority community. A state then may have to intervene in the majoritarian acts of a religious community, which it cannot do if the separation between the two is strict or “perfect.”
In fact, Nehru’s conception of secula- rism was broader still. He provides three types of Intra-Religious Domination. He provides three stark instances of such domination. The first one is religiously justified as inter-caste domination, the ugliest ex- pression of which is the practice of un- touchability—the exclusion and stigma- tisation of a group that is made to work and perform jobs that no other person is prepared to, but they are also systemati- cally treated in a sub-human manner, of- fending any sense of dignity and equality.
A state that encourages or tolerates such deeply inegalitarian and casteist practices, is not a secular state. Nehru found casteism to be as dangerous as communalism, because both are effective barriers to democracy and equality. So secularism is pitted against religiously grounded casteism.
Second, although he does not use the term religiously grounded “patriarchy,” secularism is also pitted against this form of intra-religious domination. He provides many examples of this particular form of intra-religious domi- nation. Addressing the young girls of the Vidyapeeth, he says, The purdah, that evil relic of the barbarous age, which imprisons the body and mind of so many of our sisters— will you not tear it to bits and burn the fragments? ... Our marriage laws and many of our out of date customs which hold us back and especially crush our womenfolk, will you not combat them and bring them in line with modern conditions?
The third instance of intra-religious domination that drew his attention was the domination of ordinary persons by religious clerics, from bigots to fanatics, and how the orthodox among Hindus and Muslims frequently came together in order to ensure the continuation of women’s oppression.
A stance against social reaction and in favour of freedom in the social sphere, against all those religious organisations and collectives that work against individual freedom, must be strengthened in order to regulate their power. Thus, a secular state must also inhibit and regulate the con- tinuing attempt by the high priests of religion to impose their views and norms on ordinary men and women
Nehru’s Secular Framework
For Nehru, India needed another model in which:
(a) a distinction is drawn between the identity of the state which is made entirely independent of religion and an important but limited sphere where religion is officially recognised (for instance in Articles 25 to 30 of the Indian Consti- tution);
(b) given the new reality of the interlocking of Religions A and B, and the potential of conflict between different religions, the state must be vigilant in trying to remove conflict and must foster cooperation instead;
(c) a distinction must be made between being anti-religious and being anti-institutionalised religious domination. A secular state respects Religion A and the diversity within it, including the diversity of atheisms, but under some conditions it can attack the vicious power and status hierarchies within Religion B, as well as their potential to unleash a host of uNfreedoms.
d) since religion is un- derstood to be a complex, morally ambi- guous phenomenon, some aspects require negative state intervention—ban on untouchability, the order that all temples be opened to all sections of Hindus or the law that seeks to keep religious res- trictions away from the exercise of basic individual rights of women (state against intra-religious domination). While some aspects require positive intervention— exemption to Sikhs from wearing stand- ard headgear in the army or the police, and other aspects that require that the state keep entirely away from religion— a space must exist where religious indi- viduals and communities are entirely free to do as they believe is required by their religion.
(e) the state is not strictly separated from religion. Instead, the state keeps what elsewhere I have called a policy of “principled distance” from all religions.
(f) There is neither blanket disrespect towards religions nor an unqualified res- pect for them but rather, an attitude of critical respect
g) The qualification for citizenship qua membership in the state is made wholly independent of religious affiliation and although most rights are independent of religion, some are de- pendent on the membership to a specific religious community.
This has put defenders of secularism in a mess. They have intervened in religion when they should not have, intervened when restraint was desperately needed, and frequently they respected aspects of religion not worthy of respect and disre- spected those facets that deserved respect. An acute understanding of the complex and variegated ways in which inter and intra-religious domination persists in the interstices of Indian society has been elusive and therefore has been chal- lenged, if at all, only half-heartedly.
The functions of a secular state to encourage freedom, equality and justice enhancing reforms within every reli- gion, to protect individuals from oppres- sion by their own fellow co-religionists, indeed, to rescue ordinary Hindus, Mus- lims, Christians and Sikhs from their own religious extremists and to liberate reli- gion from bigotry and fanaticism, simply slips off the radar of secularism, as es- poused by Nehruvian secularism.
Put differently, the reduction of secu- larism to a minority-protection device and the disconnection of minority-rights discourse from feminist and Dalit dis- courses, has led to the politics of all vul- nerable sections of society to be weak- ened. Instead of standing together and complementing one another, today secu- lar, feminist and Dalit discourses in many contexts, confront one another as com- petitors, if not opponents.
A second lesson to be drawn from this is that the misunderstanding of Indian secularism, especially as an anti-religious doctrine, has meant that Nehruvian sec- ularists have not maintained a proper distinction between the communitarian and the communal. A communitarian position is one wherein an individual is, at
INTERNATIONALIST JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
One aspect that was most striking in Nehru’s political thinking was his approach to international issues. During the nationalist phase, he participated in various international conferences to champion India’s cause for freedom. He also felt that international opinion in the favour of India’s struggle for independence needed to be created to put pressure on the British government.
As a principled thinker, he set in motion some of his fundamental ideas on foreign policies in his The Discovery of India which are as follows: First , there seems no alternative between world conquest and world association.... The old division and the quest for power politics have little meaning today and do not fit it with our environment, yet they continue.
Second , cooperation can only be on a basis of equality and mutual welfare, on a pulling-up of the backward nations and people to a common level of well-being and cultural advancement, on an elim- ination of racialism and domination.
Third , no nation or no people are going to tolerate domination and exploitation by another, even though this is given some more pleasant name. Nor will they remain indifferent to their own poverty and misery when other parts of the world are flourishing.
The rise of the Afro-Asian countries as independentblocs in world politics was consolidated in Nehru’spolicy of non-alignment which meant avoidance of alliance with either of the two super- powers, namely, the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The guiding principle was the Panchsheel or the five principles of peaceful coexistence that emerged out of an agreement between India and China in 1954.
Despite not being part of any formal military alliances of the superpowers, the Non-Aligned nations had to dilute their stance considerably for practical reasons when the much needed help was not available. So, given the obvious weaknesses of these former colonies that constituted the movement, Non-Alignment, as a strategy, never became as effective as Nehru would have expected.
Nehru’s Non-Alignment or neutralism also meant that‘he was well-positioned to mediate when hostilitiesbegan’. His intervention seeking to thwart the 1956 Suez and later Hungary crises received world acclaim. Nehru wasshocked at the Anglo-French intervention in Egypt and condemned the attack by saying that ‘this was naked aggression, a reversion to colonialism, a violation of the UN Charter, and could not be tolerated’
He was, however, soon to be disillusioned with the 1962 Chinese attack on India that caused serious embarrassment to India’s Prime Minister, who now realised that commitment to peaceful coexistence was perhaps most hollow unless matched by military preparedness. An assessment of Nehru’s ideas on foreign affairs suggests that he was ‘a romantic thinker’ who was at his best while play- ing with lofty ideas, disregarding perhaps the brutal reality of international politics just immediately after decolonisation.
Nehru’s unflinching faith in those five principles that sought to create a world, perhaps an ideal world, in which animosity among nations was absent. In this sense, Nehru was a visionary who looked beyond his age by seeking to build a new world, free from tension, war and humandeprivation.
Nehru Notes IPT 2 semester 6
Course: Indian Political Thought-II (6.2)
University: University of Delhi
- Discover more from:
